Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Did the Bush Administration Really Decide to Invade Iraq?
National Security.org ^ | 07.12.03

Posted on 07/23/2003 8:02:37 AM PDT by Enemy Of The State

 

Why Did the Bush Administration Really Decide to Invade Iraq?

12 July 2003

Three months after US military forces smashed the last major Iraqi resistance to the US invasion and captured Baghdad and in view of the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have yet been found, Americans are starting to wonder what really motivated the Bush Administration to take the nation into a war against a country like Iraq. This is particularly the case since it has become increasingly clear in retrospect that Iraq did not pose anything resembling the imminent threat to the United States that President Bush repeatedly alleged that it did prior to the US invasion.

The Administration’s motives for the war were several. First and foremost was the President's desire to avenge his father's failure to achieve a lasting victory over Saddam and more particularly his desire to get back at Saddam for an alleged assassination attempt against former President Bush Sr. in 1993.

Second, the Bush Administration neoconservatives invaded Iraq in furtherance of their grand plan to remake and democratize the Middle East by the force of arms in an attempt to make it safer for Israel. Of all the members of the axis of evil for the Bush Administration to wage war against, Iraq was the most “doable”, owing to the incessant demonization of Iraq stemming from 1990 onward by both Bush Administrations and the Clinton Administration. In addition, Iraq, which once boasted the fourth largest army in the world had seen its armed forces decimated to only forty percent of its pre-Gulf War One military strength by US military action in that just conflict fought to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation.

What the neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration fail to realize is that Iraq and Iran are majority Shiite and Syria majority radical Sunni so that if these countries were to become true democracies they would elect anti-American tyrants and terrorists as their leaders. In fact, Iran is a democracy today and has done precisely that. Moreover, Iran is a far greater threat both in terms of their nuclear capability, IRBM capability and support of terrorists including Al Queda, which is far more pronounced than was ever the case with Iraq.

Realist conservatives opposed the neo-conservative internationalist plan to invade Iraq out of fear that our invasion would merely serve to transform it into a carbon copy of 9-11 terrorist supporting Iran that would truly threaten the US homeland as secular Baathist-led Iraq never could or would. Now, the United States is faced with a no-win scenario. If the US withdraws from Iraq as it is in its national interests to do, it will leave behind a country dominated by supporters of international terrorism against it where one did not exist before. If the US continues to occupy Iraq with 150,000 troops, it will begin losing an increasing number of soldiers as recent news headlines have indicated and waste billions without any real hope of achieving a pro-Western democracy as the population continues to radicalize against those they perceive, rightly or wrongly, to be foreign occupiers and invaders.

Third, the Administration invaded Iraq in an attempt to re-empower the United Nations by forcing it to enforce its resolutions even more aggressively than it wanted to. Far from opposing the UN like all conservatives should, the Bush Administration consistently used Iraq's alleged violation of eighteen UN sanctions as their prime justification for the war. Furthermore, the Administration initially attempted to avoid getting approval from Congress, the only constitutional authority on whether the US can or cannot initiate the use of military force against another country, which has not first attacked us.

The Bush Administration attempted to use every possible justification they could come up with in the hopes of obtaining greater popular support for the war both at the national and international level. They needed to do so because Saddam and Iraq had committed no aggression or act of provocation to justify an all-out attack against it by the United States. In a dozen years since Gulf War One nothing had changed. Saddam was firmly in the box and everyone knew it. In fact, in 1998 there was tremendous international pressure to drop UN sanctions against Iraq due to their prior large-scale compliance with UN mandates. Almost immediately following 9-11, neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration led by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President Dick Cheney and others tried to create the illusion of a connection between Iraq, a secular socialist state and Al Queda, an Islamist extremist terrorist group. In this attempt they were almost entirely unsuccessful.

Secretary Wolfowitz actually admitted that the WMD justification was “the only one that stuck” despite scanty evidence of a continuing Iraqi WMD program and the fact that Iraq had already destroyed the most of its WMD arsenal under UN supervision so that they posed a far lesser threat than in 1990 before the First Gulf War. Ultimately the Administration's justification of "liberating" the Iraqi people was just an afterthought. The American people didn't hear a word about the need to “liberate” the people of Iraq until just before the war. The Administration used that word to cover up the fact that they were using US military forces illegitimately to launch an aggressive war upon a country that had never attacked us and as Secretary of State Colin Powell eloquently put it less than two years ago, “threatened not the United States.”

Once the war began, suddenly we were told that finding WMD was no longer a top priority and international inspectors were told they would not be welcome in the new US occupied Iraq. One wonders if the Administration might have obtained intelligence that Saddam had in fact destroyed what little was left of his arsenal before the US invasion, but decided not to release this info to the American public to avoid the embarrassment and a major loss of US prestige and credibility which was by then firmly on the line in Iraq. With their credibility already badly damaged by this deception wrought upon the American people over the real rationale for the war, we may never know for sure.

It is high time for the American people and their duly elected representatives in Congress to demand that President Bush, who proclaimed “mission accomplished” in Iraq in a speech over two months ago to declare victory and withdraw all US troops from Iraq by Christmas. The indefinite commitment of over one-third of our Army to the occupation of Iraq leaves the US incapable of sending reinforcements to help defend against hypothetical attacks against our allies on the Korean peninsula and Taiwan where the next conflict will likely erupt.

The Administration’s attempt at nation-building and indeed empire-building in Iraq constitutes the very antithesis of conservatism and is doomed to ultimate failure. If continued, it will further provoke an increasingly visible global backlash of anti-Americanism which will likely culminate in further catastrophic terrorist attacks against the US homeland, resulting in the deaths of hundreds and perhaps thousands more Americans. The prompt withdrawal of our forces from Iraq is absolutely necessary to minimize further loss of life among our heroic and selflessly-serving military servicemen. It is also essential to do so in order to conserve our military strength and save untold billions of dollars in taxpayer funds for winnable missions that clearly advance, rather than jeopardize the US national security interest

 


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Israel; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: anamericanbanned; dorks; helpmebecki; incompetents; isolationists; nutballs; paleolunacy; pyneisasleaze; villageofthebanned; whywefight
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-102 next last

1 posted on 07/23/2003 8:02:37 AM PDT by Enemy Of The State
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
We had such weak arguments... the killing and torturing of his own people, and sponsoring terrorism was NOT enough to kill that b@stard...

Geez liberals are pathetic...
2 posted on 07/23/2003 8:05:24 AM PDT by Mr. K (VEY series about everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
Why Did the Bush Administration Really Decide to Invade Iraq?

Because it would cause the Democrats to make a$$es out of themselves!

3 posted on 07/23/2003 8:06:28 AM PDT by Onelifetogive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
Or are they using the war to keep our attention focused somewhere else whilst our government officials fill their pockets with cash and send our jobs overseas?
4 posted on 07/23/2003 8:07:56 AM PDT by samuel_adams_us
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
Reason #1: The U.N.'s incapability to enforce it's own resolutions since Bush 41.
5 posted on 07/23/2003 8:09:51 AM PDT by RasterMaster (Saddam's family was a WMD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samuel_adams_us
dam democrats. I was just getting started on his spending, ie Medicare Prescription Bill, and the Dems had to go and start a false smoke screen to change the conversation. Now I have to struggle to change the topic back, and to make sure I get all new info.

Bush's spending...that's my sticking point.


But it's not like I'd vote dem.
6 posted on 07/23/2003 8:10:57 AM PDT by eyespysomething (Would someone please tell them to SHUT UP already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
Hardly looks like a liberal outfit:

http://www.national-security.org/issues.shtml


but then you asserted a liberal cause for intervention ("the killing and torturing of his own people") in your post so I take it you were either being ironic or being absurd.
7 posted on 07/23/2003 8:13:12 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
To make a example of an established ME state as to what will happen if they continue to pursue WMD and state terrorism.

Worked, too.
8 posted on 07/23/2003 8:13:15 AM PDT by Little Ray (When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
The justification is 9/11/2001. Personally I would not have "done" Iraq first. Clearly, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and N. Korea should have been "done" first.

What Iraq shows is the folly of 'boots on the ground'. There really is a potential quagmire.

So nuke 'em, Dano, and move on to the next target.

--Boris

9 posted on 07/23/2003 8:13:20 AM PDT by boris (The deadliest Weapon of Mass Destruction in History is a Leftist With a Word Processor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
I don't know, why did Clinton bomb Sudan?
10 posted on 07/23/2003 8:14:00 AM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
Let's see......for the first time in a long time, there is some progress being made on peace between Israel and the Palestinians....there have been real signs of revolution in Iran against the radical Islamic government.....the Saudis have finally begun rounding up Al Quaeda members.....and Sadam is not murdering his own people anymore. Sounds like maybe the removal of that regime and insertion of US forces had a pretty good effect.
11 posted on 07/23/2003 8:15:06 AM PDT by LOC1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: boris
Im with you on that one!
12 posted on 07/23/2003 8:15:31 AM PDT by Enemy Of The State (If we don't take action now, We settle for nothing later!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
The US (and if you care about them, the UN) told Iraq in no uncertain terms: disarm, or prove that you have, or we're coming in.

They didn't, so we did.

End of story.

Why is that so hard to understand?
13 posted on 07/23/2003 8:17:32 AM PDT by IncPen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
I thought the invasion was all about yellowcake. Not that that's fallen through, I feel very misled. /sarcasm
14 posted on 07/23/2003 8:17:53 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
The "LiboCrites"remind me of what my late wife,Elizabeth used to say was one of my primary faults!She used to say that I spent far too much time figuring out reasons why I shouldn't do something than just getting on with it!!!!!
15 posted on 07/23/2003 8:21:53 AM PDT by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: boris
QUAGMIRE ALERT!


16 posted on 07/23/2003 8:22:03 AM PDT by ASA Vet ("Those who know, don't talk. Those who talk, don't know." (I'm in the Sgt Schultz group))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
We invaded Iraq so Disneyland Middle-east could be built, complete with the Terrorist Bomber roller coaster attraction, to recruit cute Iraqi babes for colleges here and get them on the cheer leading team and to assure that we have enough sand to pack up the butts of French surrender monkeys.

Twits.
17 posted on 07/23/2003 8:24:30 AM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
This article sounds like good reasons to me.
18 posted on 07/23/2003 8:29:50 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet
Why is everyone so certain that there wasn't an "imminent" threat". All it would take is a "suitcase" delivered to another idiot wanting 72 virgins. Connecting all the dots is difficult enough AFTER a disastor as we know.

Being WISE is even more difficult. The option of "as soon as they hit us, we can hit them back" is absurd given the history of Saddam and the possibility of Usama or Palestinian help.

19 posted on 07/23/2003 8:31:01 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: samuel_adams_us
Or are they using the war to keep our attention focused somewhere else whilst our government officials fill their pockets with cash and send our jobs overseas?

Like a diversion is needed ? Since when did corrupt officials care who was watching ?

20 posted on 07/23/2003 8:32:07 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
cute Iraqi babes

Ok, so where are the required photos?

21 posted on 07/23/2003 8:40:44 AM PDT by ASA Vet ("Those who know, don't talk. Those who talk, don't know." (I'm in the Sgt Schultz group))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
The sky is falling --- The sky is falling!!!

Guys like this just won't take success for an answer.

22 posted on 07/23/2003 8:49:08 AM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beckett
Afghanistan, Iraq....next are Syria, New Jersey, Iran, Michigan, North Korea, Delaware....enemies, foreign and domestic.
23 posted on 07/23/2003 8:54:53 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
bump
24 posted on 07/23/2003 9:12:58 AM PDT by kimosabe31
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt; Mr. K
Hardly looks like a liberal outfit:

True..."liberal" is not exactly the word I'd use, and in fact their website has all the best "conservative links", but... their "about us" page is blank, and they've not (yet?) put any bio's for their "policy analysts", none of which I've heard of! I'd say more of an "old generals" alert (you know what I'm talking about...we've seen them on TV) and I can't say as I agree with them myself; what do you make of this from their home page?!

"CNSI supports the implementation of the tenets of the Weinburger Doctrine, which states that the US should only fight wars that are just and that further the US vital interest only after all reasonable alternatives have first been exhausted and with total national commitment including the support of a sizable majority of the US population.

So far, so good, but read on:

CNSI adds its voice to those of retired Generals Schwartzkopf, Zinni, Hoar, Clark, Scowcroft, Shalikashvili and many members of former President George H.W. Bush’s Gulf War cabinet including former Secretary of States Jim Baker and Lawrence Eagleburger, former HUD Secretary Jack Kemp and until recently, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell in urging the Administration to abandon its plans for an unnecessary and unprovoked invasion of Iraq fraught with potential negative consequences for US national security.

CNSI believes that the expert opinions of retired and still serving general officers on this and other important issues have been given insufficient consideration by the President and his Secretary of Defense.

'Course, they're also anti-UN, pro big tanks and heavy weapons, and opposed to "nuking" anyone (they actually used the word "nuking", in quotes...that's kind of unprofessional, don't you think?!)...but I think as sensible as they may seem on some issues, they just really dislike Rummy a lot, and do not want a "lighter, faster" military, LOL!!!

25 posted on 07/23/2003 9:17:10 AM PDT by 88keys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
Sorry, dude. "Real" conservatives DID support this. The fact is these states were, and many remain, threats to this country through their support of terrorism, with or without WMDs. (They have them, don't worry).

Real conservatives don't hide behind the "isolationist" blatherings of Buchanan, but understand that an active foreign policy of taking out your enemies is preferable to 9/11.

26 posted on 07/23/2003 9:27:41 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 88keys
I also noticed that most of their regional issues" links were dead.

However I did a search on the top honcho "David T. Pyne" and discovered he is a bigger hawk on Israel than most within this administration; completely opposed to the creation of another arab terror state within Israel...

Go figure; I always thought invading Iraq put our troops in the right place; glaring at Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. And I also thought that most of those opposed to invading Iraq (including "conservatives") were of the "screw Israel and kill the foreign aid" whine...
27 posted on 07/23/2003 9:31:55 AM PDT by Yehuda (http://www.JewPoint.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
Why is that so hard to understand?

Considering how many WMDs 'intelligence' reports said Saddam had, you'd think they would have found them by now don't you? How can you disarm when you don't have anything to disarm?

28 posted on 07/23/2003 9:32:57 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: samuel_adams_us
Or are they using the war to keep our attention focused somewhere else whilst our government officials fill their pockets with cash and send our jobs overseas?

Socialist putz.

29 posted on 07/23/2003 9:34:18 AM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
Socialist, or realist? You trust our government? You stupid?
30 posted on 07/23/2003 9:44:02 AM PDT by samuel_adams_us
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
First and foremost was the President's desire to avenge his father's failure to achieve a lasting victory over Saddam and more particularly his desire to get back at Saddam for an alleged assassination attempt against former President Bush Sr. in 1993.

That's pretty much the case.   A tie to 9/11 was conjured  up to paper this over.

31 posted on 07/23/2003 10:35:23 AM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
That it starts out with the dynastic claim shows that the rest of the claims are equally speculative. 9/11 showed, if nothing else, how unstable the Middle East was before the invasion.
32 posted on 07/23/2003 10:52:18 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
Look at it as a strategic military and geo-political decision. By taking Iraq you cut the Mulim crescent from N. Africa to S.E. Asia in two.

Co-incidentally, you demonstrate your military capability in the Arab world by conclusively beating the largest Muslim military regime twice in ten years with hardly any losses.
33 posted on 07/23/2003 10:52:28 AM PDT by wildbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
This is a pathetic load of lies. Long but still crap. Bush did not invade Iraq for ANY personal reasons. The article's statement to that effect is only one of the lies it attempts to spread.

Another howler "Iran is a democracy." Please, no more, I am laughing too hard.
34 posted on 07/23/2003 10:57:06 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boris
Uh, maybe you were so dazzled by this brilliant analysis and load of lies that you didn't notice that Afganistan was "first."
35 posted on 07/23/2003 10:58:42 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
Just another ahistorical rant forgetting that we, and the UK, have been bombing Saddam since 1991, and that we were engaged there.
36 posted on 07/23/2003 11:00:11 AM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
I suppose you just give up when your team gets behind 14-0 in the second quarter or is losing 3-0 in the third inning, too.

BTW there were no weapons of MD found for FIVE yrs after the first war and then only when they were told where to look.

Absurd.
37 posted on 07/23/2003 11:03:41 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Not only that but this is a miserablely written article too.
38 posted on 07/23/2003 11:07:38 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
I only got this far:

First and foremost was the President's desire to avenge his father's failure ...

Any serious discussion of our motivations for going into Iraq that begins with the ridiculous assertion that this was the PRIMARY reason for invading is a harbinger of bias. Or perhaps just the workings of a politically adolescent mind. Powerful men such as Bush II seldom have that kind of love of their fathers. Bush II is concerned with his own successes/failures, not those of his father. Only a teen-ager would believe such moronic assertions.

39 posted on 07/23/2003 11:16:46 AM PDT by Catalonia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
"In fact, Iran is a democracy today"

In fact, with this sentence, this article destroyed any chance of me reading further. Anyone who claims as "fact" that the Iranian Thugocracy is a democracy doesn't deserve your time.

40 posted on 07/23/2003 11:18:59 AM PDT by Frances_Marion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
Public Law No: 107-243
41 posted on 07/23/2003 11:21:28 AM PDT by michigander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frances_Marion
Bingo. Iran does indeed have representatives who are elected, but they have no real power. The mullahs ignore them at will. To try to characterize this as a 'democracy' is an indication that everything this 'organization' stands for is suspect.
42 posted on 07/23/2003 11:23:12 AM PDT by Catalonia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Frances_Marion
Iran, and Saudi Arabia should have been bombed on Sept 12, 2001. I could have waited on Iraq for a couple of years, however, the people behind 9/11 were the Saudis, and fanatic Ayatollahs. Now we are wasting our time and money rebuilding this hell hole called Iraq. THEY WILL NEVER LOVE US! We must grow up and accespt that fact! If you think the Palestenians will ever love the Jews, I have a bridge for sale.
43 posted on 07/23/2003 11:27:16 AM PDT by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123

He needed killin'


44 posted on 07/23/2003 11:29:35 AM PDT by Dilbert56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
You're exactly right about Bagdad Disneyland.

Michael Eisner is desperate to find another location after last month's unfortunate incident at EuroDisney...During the fireworks display, the entire French staff surrendered.

45 posted on 07/23/2003 11:37:23 AM PDT by Deb (Do these jeans make my tag look big?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: boris
We didn't do "Iraq first". Remember Afghanistan?
46 posted on 07/23/2003 11:39:31 AM PDT by Deb (Do these jeans make my tag look big?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
The "avenge the father" argument is the dumbest thing the Democrats, the Marxist Islamics and the Looney Libertarians ever came up with, since GW's removal of Saddam risked making his Father look like a weak warrior who couldn't get the job done even with the UN. Of all the stupid, desperate reasons destructive minds could come up with...this is the most hilarious.

It's interesting that you and the writer of this obvious Onion piece, agree with Baghdad Bob.

47 posted on 07/23/2003 11:48:32 AM PDT by Deb (Do these jeans make my tag look big?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Deb
Nice rant. Had we attacked Saudi Arabia, I'd agree with you.
All else is spin and wishful thinking, not born out by facts on the ground, ie, the vaporbombs.
48 posted on 07/23/2003 11:55:11 AM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Oh, yeah...the Saudis are the problem. Not a very graceful dodge. You and facts are total strangers.
49 posted on 07/23/2003 11:59:02 AM PDT by Deb (Do these jeans make my tag look big?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Deb
Oh, yeah...the Saudis are the problem. Not a very
 graceful dodge. You and facts are total strangers.


Really?  Iraqis attacked the Trade Center?
50 posted on 07/23/2003 12:03:43 PM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-102 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson